PADMAKUMARI & ORS. versus DASAYYAN &ORS.

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 07-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 56 
PADMAKUMARI & ORS. 
v. 
DASAYYAN &ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3570 of 2015) 
APRIL 7, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - ss. 16(c) and 19(b) -
Specific Performance of unregistered agreement for sale -
Between plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 11 - Balance sale 
consideration not paid by the plaintiff within the time i.e. nine 
o months which was agreed upon - Thereafter the property in 
question sold by defendant Nos. 1to11 to defendant Nos. 
12 to 15 (appellants) by a registered sale-deed by paying 
the sale consideration amount- Suit for specific performance 
by plaintiff - Decreed by courts below - On appeal, held: 
E Finding of facts by courts below was contrary to the terms 
and conditions of the agreement, pleadings and the evidence 
on record - Time was the essence of the contract and the 
plaintiff failed to perform the part of the agreement by not 
paying the balance sale consideration within stipulated period 
F agreed upon - Plaintiff has also not complied with the 
mandatory 1ega/ requirement provided uls. 16(c) because 
the pleadings of the plaintiff were not in conformity with Order 
6 Rule 3 and Clause 3 of Form No. 4 7 in Appendix A of CPC 
G - Respondent Nos. 12 to 15 were bonafide purchasers and 
thus were protected u/s. 19(b) - Thus the suit for specific 
performance was not liable to be decreed - Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908- Or. 6 r. 3; Appendix A Form 4 7 clause 3. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
56 
PADMAKUMAR & ORS. v. DASAYYAN & ORS. 
57 
HELD: 1. It is not correct to say that time was not A 
the essence of the contract as defendant Nos. 1 to 11 
themselves have failed to perform their part of the 
agreement i.e. by measuring the suit schedule property. 
The question of taking measurement would not arise, 
before the plaintiff performed his part of the contract B 
regarding the balance consideration within the period 
stipulated in the agreement. Undisputedly, that had not 
been done by the plaintiff within the stipulated time and 
the notice was issued by the plaintiff only after one C 
year, therefore, the plaintiff has not adhered to the 
time which 
is stipulated to pay the balance 
consideration amount to defendant Nos. 1 to 11 which 
is very important legal aspect which was required to be 
considered by the Courts below at the time of o 
determining the rights of the parties and pass the 
impugned judgment. The finding of fact by courts below 
is contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement, 
pleadings and the evidence on record. [Para 16 and 17] 
[69-G-H; 70-B-D, E] 
E 
Gomathinayagam Pillai & Ors. vs. Palaniswami Nadar 
AIR (1967) SC 868; Chand Rani (D) by Lrs. vs. Kamal 
Rani (D) by Lrs. (1993) 1 SCC 519: 1992 (3) Suppl. 
SCR 798 - relied on. 
F 
Gomathinayagam Pillai & Ors. vs. Palaniswami Nadar 
AIR (1967) SC 868; Harold Wood Brick Company Ltd. 
vs. Ferris (1935) King's Bench Division 198; 
Sa~damani Kandappan vs. S. Rajalakshmi & Ors. AIR 
G 
(2011) SC 3234 - referred to. 
2. The pleadings of the plaintiff is not in conformity 
with Order 6 Rule 3 CPC, clause 3 of Form No. 47 in 
Appendix 'A'. The plaintiff has thus not complied with H 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A the legal requirement which is mandatory as provided 
under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. [Paras 
18 and 19] [70-F-G; 71-B] 
B 
c 
Jugraj Singh &Anr. vs. Labh Singh & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 
31:1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 168; Ram Awadh vs. 
Achhaibar Dubey (2000) 2 SCC 428: 2000 (1) 
SCR 566; Ouseph Varghese vs. Joseph Aley & Ors. 
(1969) 2 SCC 539; Abdul KhaderRowthervs. P.K. Sara 
Bai & Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 313; Pushparani S. Sundaram 
& Ors. vs. Pauline Manomani James (D) & Ors. (2002) 
9 SCC 582 ; Manju Nath Anandappa Urf Shivappa 
Hansai vs. Tammanasa & Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 
390: 2003 (2) SCR 1068 - relied on. 
D 
3. The non-compliance of the contract regarding 
payment of balance consideration to defendant Nos. 1 
to 11 on the part of the plaintiff within nine months is an 
undisputed fact and further the agreement of sale is not 
registered, as is evidenced from the encumbrance 
E certificate obtained by defendant Nos. 12 to 15 before 
they entered into an agreement (Exhibit B-1 ). Both 
the Courts below have recorded an erroneous finding 
on the non-existent fact holding that the agreement of 
F sale in favour of the plaintiff is a registered document. 
More so, defendant Nos. 12 to 15 before entering into 
the agreement 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.